Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    September 25, 2010 3:00pm-3:30pm PST

4:00 pm
appropriately attending those programs. there are several elementary schools that are currently served and have been served for some time by the bus routes. in their sums that have -- some that have been roman patterns -- and enrollment patterns. a recommendation at least preliminarily is that that be maintained. we went to provide transportation from high-density areas too low density areas. we also want to do this in a racially isolated avenue -- neighborhoods. moving on to the next page, we would to provide information from the areas with the lowest test scores to k-8 schools and
4:01 pm
language immersion programs. we have certain situations where within an attendance area, either due to size or topographical obstacles within an attendance area, we may encounter a need. treasuring and is one obvious example, and in daniel webster is a very large geographic area. so they can be able to walk or be able to make on their own. and we want to support the feeder patterns at whatever time this become implemented with all
4:02 pm
of that said, and there are some things that moved into the nitty gritty, and there are requests and family requests. it is really an accumulated soot of wrote that reflects a number of different situations and requests. i am trying to have a vocabulary lesson.
4:03 pm
if we were to start over based on the assignment policy, one of the main goals would be to move students from the areas with the lowest average test scores to programs in areas outside, students from treasure island, those that have large boundaries. if that were all we accomplished with our transportation network, that would be a very significant shift and the reduction of many stops around the city and especially on the west side. again, if we were to take that approach, it is a very specific question about grandfathering the current rothe, students that
4:04 pm
have been served on the routes that exist today, and if there were no grandfathering that was included in the transportation infrastructure, and that would mean eliminating school bus transportation for about half. another implication if we were to take that approach, there's been no transportation, which was specifically supporting after-school programs, and private after-school programs. after-school programs are not available at all of our sites. there is a significant waiting list. so this represents a balancing act.
4:05 pm
staff is working under the premise that we have an outside parameter. we cannot entertain any thing that would increase the budget with transportation, and hopefully, over time, we would be able to achieve a decrease in the transportation costs. the question is, how much, how quickly, and what are the priorities that would guide the reshaping of the fleet? so a few questions that we would like feedback on either later tonight or later. are we on the correct course? does the board what us to redesign transportation within this? how important is it to reduce
4:06 pm
the transportation budget, and does the board want us to provide transportation to the after-school programs until this comes to fruition. i would just say that in the board members are already aware of this, but there has been a more intense effort to conceptualize more seamless after-school programs at all or most of our school sites that will really change the need for students to change the there have been for after-school programs. and then, what are the board spots about grandfathering this? currently, students have been riding, but that would not force us to continue if we were focusing on both ways for the
4:07 pm
policy. one of the things i will mention before we wrap up is that we know there has been a fair amount of discussion over the years around whether we should charge fees for students who are writing the general education buses, and that is something we are still continuing to look at, and let me point out that if we were focused mostly on the general lead services, not that there would not be exceptions to this, but generally speaking, those who would be writing those buses would typically not be charged a fee. if that were really the main element of our general education services, then we would not be in a position to charge. that is it for the
4:08 pm
transportation section, and we would love to hear your questions and public testimony. commissioner: we are looking for clarifying suggestions. is that a clarifying comments, commission yee? commissioner fewer: does this reflect an additional cut on top of the redesign? >> well, right now, he can correct me if i am wrong. i think 44 general education classes, and that is what is in the current year's budget for fiscal year 200011. we certainly expect to have a need to cut expenditures generally within the district over the next two years. at least, we still do not know
4:09 pm
what is going to happen with the state budget, etc., but we are operating in the framework that we need to cut expenses. have we identified a specific cut in transportation, per se, in the answer is no, but that is one of our policy questions. we have an interest in reducing the size of our fleet. commissioner fewer: that may be clear fine. commissioner: any other testimony? we're going to try to be out of here in another 35 minutes. there are really only two of you. go ahead. >> debut. my name is deborah. i am a parent of a kindergartner
4:10 pm
and an elementary school and also of a two-year old, and i lived in glen park. i take my daughter downtown to daycare. i recognize that the transportation budget is limited, and one thing that i have not heard discussed, i am not under the illusion that some yellow bus will come right to my door and take my kid right to school with no intervention to me. i understand that. the budget is not going to cover that for most general education students. i do think that there is a real opportunity to leverage these dollars. i am ready and willing to take my child to school on u.d.. here is what i have observed. going to miral loma with my son,
4:11 pm
it passes derek lowe is on one area. then, it is about one block from glen park elementary. it is one block from sunnyside elementary. i also believe on the clarendon's doorstep. also, there will be enormous environmental benefits to have. however, is one of only about four new routes that run every 30 minutes in rush hour. only every 30 minutes. i have been trying to take my two children? -- my two children, and it is a real challenge. i encourage the board to think about leveraging dollars to work with existing routes, even if
4:12 pm
you could just increase the frequency from every 30 to every 50 minutes in a few critical hours per day, 7:00 a.m. until 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. it would make a huge difference, particularly those parents in the underserved areas, bringing kids to the undesirable schools, we're right now, a lot to do not have helped. commissioner: you may not like to hear this, but this is something we have been trying to do for decades. the thank you very much. -- i thank you very much. >> hello, and i am a parent at buena vista. i thought it would be useful to suck in the day that ms. o'keefe gave tonight, and you have not heard any public conversation about transportation. we have not either.
4:13 pm
i'd just want to commend you for taking the extra time to think about what this part of a policy will look like and to think about what a good public policy would look like to let people know this is on the table and that it is a serious issue that people have to engage in. the fact that you haven't heard from the community does not mean it is not important. commissioner: if we were to start recommending that, then we would start hearing from the public. commissioner -- put it out there as something you want to hear from. don't do it again. do it as a set of ideas.
4:14 pm
commissioner: we have a little time now, so, commissioner mendoza. commissioner mendoza: the idea has come up about charging it, and that is something that we could do. >> we could do it. commissioner: the question is,
4:15 pm
will we realize enough money to make it worthwhile? commissioner fewer: i guess that is where i am interested, because we have some issues. we have dropped them along the routes. i am just wondering if that would be something. >> that was something in the premise of what i was saying earlier about the implications of different approaches to the reshaping of the transportation policy, and maybe i should have said up front that it is
4:16 pm
possible for districts, including ours, to charge, and the term is "9 indigent families." -- "non-indigent families," and those are families not considered to be living in poverty. the state establishes a dollar amount per trip, whether it is the morning or the afternoon, and i think it is something like $4 per trip, and i do not think we would charge that much or the maximum, but it was like $1.50 per trip, using our current
4:17 pm
route, and an estimate of how many students would be waived from the fee and how many would be subjected to it. i think it was close to $1 million per year. this would make a significant but would not be the answer, i guess. commissioner: i just have a couple of things. first, i am a little chagrined because we have been talking about making major cuts to the transportation budget for a year, and there are so few things left that we know we have to cut. we will sadly have to make more cuts. but i would like to see a proposal that makes significant
4:18 pm
cuts to the general education, and it might look so draconian to me that i might not support it, but i still think that, so i just put that out there for a response, and my other concern about charging people, i mean i've always been in favor of that, particularly with the technology. we actually have some net gain. we have recently looked at the maps that show the stops for various schools and the number representing the number of kids, and there were way too many, so i do not care how much we
4:19 pm
charge. if we send a bus half a mile to a bus stop to pick up one kid, i do not want to do that, and i think we are shortchanging everybody else in the system when we know this is money to be spending elsewhere, on education programs that we have had to cut, so any discussion we have of the revenue, i am hoping that we will not have bus stops with your. , whatever, five kids, whenever we think is deficient. i am talking about bus stops, not routes. that we get out there, and what we are going to have to do is be willing to say, first vote, we
4:20 pm
have to be willing to say to families that if you are dependent on that bus, and we are not going to have that bus anymore because we cannot afford it, we are going to offer you something. i support the proposals were the 67 goes, so that is the kind of stuff that we have to do. this discussion in this policy must be based on looking at our educational goals and not with the compunction that we were always at it and only taking away or modifying transportation. if no one was riding the bus. you know, there has not been a
4:21 pm
cost-benefit analysis here, ever. commissioner: can i ask a clarifying question? i did not mean to interrupt. under this policy, one of the goals is to create church's we did choice for diversity. eliminating stops the just of one or two children, in an area where there may be some stops, for example, where one child gets on the bus, which is isolated, does not have a high demand at all, in a situation like that, with the board what the stuff to increase the number
4:22 pm
of children to do work, to increase the number of children who are getting on the bus in order to create more diversity, or would they want us to consider phasing out the bus? >> the board members would have to weigh in on this. that is the kind of principle but i would ask, can we do that? can we build that into our outreach put if we think that adds significantly and that it might be leverage, we preserve to keep it, , whichever principal you think is doable, and this would be a role in the assignment process. that would be my point. i have looked at these maps, and i see a bus stop way out there, and there is one kid getting on. that is different.
4:23 pm
this is right along the way. commissioner yee: there were some questions that were asked, so i guess i will answer those. i was expecting more answers and questions. -- van questions. -- than questions. rather than looking at the rest of the questions you have, i
4:24 pm
would think in terms of having a reduction so it does not impact back. -- that. if we have stops in one neighborhood, which could reduce that number of stops. it does not totally eliminate it. i think the sentiment has been that they reduce the cost of transportation, so i think by reducing matt, how do you say
4:25 pm
it, compatible? i would love to see a reduction. does the board went to provide transportation after school? i think commissioner wynns mentioned this. if there is a critical mass, do we really consider that? if it is for private after- school programs, i would say that unless they're willing to pay for it, they are eliminated. i also have a question about the cdp's. child development programs.
4:26 pm
these programs are serving some of the lowest income families, and so for me, i am not in support of that service for instance, for after-school, if a parent had to work, as you know, most employers would not say, "oh, go ahead. take a couple of hours off." we do not want to go back into the latchkey type of situation. basically potentially getting into a lot of trouble. i'm interested in finding ways, forcing a parent to say, "you
4:27 pm
are 6 years old. take the bus." the grandfathering of the stops, i would say generally, no, we should not grandfather just because we have not, so i would say that is how i would answer your questions. commissioner: commissioner maufas, and then commissioner fewer: commissioner maufas: idea that conversations, knowing that there were other issues. i think we just need to continue
4:28 pm
doing that. really thinking about that is an option for them that muni and public transportation goes by. encouraging the public to participate in that way, doing what they believe will work for them. muni has to have public forums right now, so here is an opportunity, and further, as i have said before, i think this is the great opportunity. i understand that muni drivers are aging out and entering into
4:29 pm
retirement. i think that is one of the great stepping stands to be without work. especially during the peak time, as the spirit who came to the board and talked about increasing the bus route, what a great opportunity for us to put some paraprofessionals on so that the parents can say, "oh, yes, i know this paraprofessional." there is someone that they know and recognize every day on the bus. that is for the next transportation discussion. commissioner: commissioner norton


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on